5 comments about My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.

1. This is one of the least political autobiographies of a public servant in a political position in Washington.
   
   That's no reason, in my mind, to doubt the veracity of most of what Freeh writes. Those looking for conspiracy theores or outright condemnation of political adversaries will be disappointed. Freeh writes deeply of respect for a large number of persons, most notably FBI agents and fellow prosecutors.
   
   It does make for an interesting, amusing, but very non-combative read.
   
   Even Bill Clinton, who receives most of Freeh's ire for being more a politician than a manager, is also described as the most charming and disarming statesman.
   
   It's not that Freeh is afraid to talk ill of any of his former co-workers, but rather this is an autobiography of his public career.
   
   He doesn't take the opportunity to hammer home points about policy, but rather berates mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of ethical focus.
   
   This is a good read for someone looking for a shining hero. This is not a good place to find dirt.



2. Freeh comes across early on as pompous and a phoney and it carries throught the book. He keeps remniding us what a great father he is because he has his kids drawings in his office. He is twice politically appointed yet rails against Clinton for being a politician. He seeths about the investigation of a bombing on Saudi soil and why Clinton would not let him interview the suspects...? I kept thinking Federal applies to the United States, not Saudi Arabia. It's that kind of arrogance that makes this book easy to put down. Plus, He never goes into ANY interesting detail on ANY investigation. And he OFTEN points out how he never really knew FBI agent turned spy Robert Hanssen. Hanssen went to the same church, their kids were in the same school....YET the same Freeh who says his style was to be among the troops claims to have barely known who he was. (BS) He also rails against Anything Clinton yet, everything Bush is AOK... This book is nothing more than a Swift-boat FBI poison pen letter.



3. In writing My FBI, Louis J, Freeh has given us a microscopic view of how the FBI works and the numerable problems he faced during his tenure. He comes across as honorable and hard working, telling the truth as he saw it. I couldn't put the book down. I highly recommend reading this book to learn about how the FBI operates and about the terroism that we face today.



4. Louis Freeh provides an interesting look into the world of the FBI. The book takes an overview approach with specific vignettes of his time at the organization and how it evolved (or lack thereof) over the years. Freeh was director during a turbulent time when trust in the FBI was at a low and worked one of the toughest cases in its history with the Kohbar towers investigation. This investigation is the focal point of the book and done very well. He also covers a lot with the Bob Hansen treason as well as other stories. The main problem with the book is that it is light on details and the chapters often ramble on without focus. The book would have been better off from an organizational standpoint with shorter chapters more pointed towards the topics. I would like to have seen lesser stories but the ones told in greater detail. Overall it is a useful primary source but not the definitive history of his role in the FBI during those years.



5. "My FBI" was a quick read and a very interesting look behind the scenes at the FBI in the 1990s. Freeh discusses background on the major cases the FBI handled during his tenure. This book gives insight that you didn't get from the news stories. One of the controversial subjects in the book was Freeh's relationship with President Clinton. This subject may turn off certain people, but the bottom line is that Freeh did not like working for Clinton. That is not a result of politics- because Freeh went out of his way to be apolitical. Most of it stemmed from the many investigations into the Clinton administration like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Another small part of the book I found to be interesting was Freeh's take on former "Counterterrorism Czar" Richard Clarke. Freeh writes that Clarke was never a major player in national security in either the Clinton or Bush White House. Freeh writes that Clarke was a second-tier player that was rarely at any of the important meetings. This has somewhat of a ring of truth in light of the way Clarke has tried to recast himself as a modern day Paul Revere of terrorism, after the fact. Somehow I don't buy his self-promotion, see-I told you so attitude. Anyway, overall a solid book for those interested in the FBI and national security issues.

5 comments about Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas.

1. The authors show how Thomas is divided to the point of having a compartmentalized personality. This is especially, but by no means limited to, his use of sexual language, as witnessed by the Anita Hill case.
   
   Re that, they talked with several moderate GOP Senators who supported Thomas and now indicate they regret it. And, without going into the confirmation hearings as much as Mayer/Abramson, it seems clear that, if Biden had rolled the dice differently and had Angela Wright testify, Thomas would never have been confirmed.
   
   That said, it seems Thomas has had many a chip on his shoulder long before we got to 1991. The authors do a good job of pointing out that many of these chips are directed toward certain sub-groups within black America, based on skin tone, class or money within black America. I'm sure they were able to handle this better than white authors could.
   
   That said, contrary to 1- and 2-star reviewers, this book is in no way a hatchet job. As for Thomas' judicial philosophy, it's clear they're not commenting at all on it one way or the other. They're not even commenting on whether he's "right" or "wrong" to spin his childhood, and its various influences, the way he does.
   
   At this stage in Thomas' life, this is probably the best, most well-rounded biography we can expect.
   
   What I learned from this is that Thomas seems fueled by anger more than anything else; I sometimes wonder if the thin skin he can exhibit is a shell that's about to implode. Beyond that, he seems quite conscious of the compartmentalized subselves he has, with different ones presented to different people.
   
   Beyond my disagreement with his political stances, I feel kind of sorry for him.



2. In Supreme Discomfort the authors Merida and Fletcher try hard to create a biography of Justice Thomas based on interviews with childhood associates, former classmates, extended family, and former law clerks, in addition to crafting a social science construct to his background. However, using this approach produces a book that tells the reader less about the purported subject than about how he is viewed. More effort is spent trying to put Thomas into a category of being angry and resentful of slights than seeking to flesh out the nuances of this very complicated figure.
   
   The authors delve into the fact that Thomas is reviled as an Uncle Tom in the black community, but do little to explain either Thomas' views or his antagonists other than a for or against basis. In a late chapter they bring Henry Louis Gates Jr. into the discussion to argue that affirmative action is good, but do not look at Thomas' writings and speeches where he argues for an approach based on merit and economic factors over race.
   The authors seem to want to stress what they think Thomas should be, rather than examine their subject's own views. There is more of a discussion of Justice Scalia's pizza preferences than the nuances of Textual Originalism that in many cases leads both justices down different paths. Jan Crawford Greenberg does a much better job looking at what the justices actually do and their legal philosophies in Supreme Conflict.
   
   The narrative flow of the text is somewhat choppy going forward and backward chronologically without warning, as if the two authors were writing different sections. There are a few nice anecdotes, such as the gag eyeballs tossed to clerks "keep an eye on things", but otherwise the authors seem to accept the consensus views of the media. Ken Foskett in Judging Thomas does a better job explaining the work of the EEOC and the Court, goes into extensive genealogical and historical background of Pin Point, and had more access to the subject. However, of the three biographies Supreme Discomfort, Judging Thomas , Thomas' own My Grandfather's Son, the autobiography is by far the best written and edited, although by necessity it stops when Thomas joins the court.



3. I am sure the authors did the best that they could without interviewing the Justice and the book is well written. However, I am not even sure I would read Thomas' own book which came out after this one. Justice Thomas is complex and you are never really sure where he is coming from. Friends argued a case a year or so ago at the U.S. Supreme Court, and I remember one attorney mentioning that Judge Thomas never said a word or asked one question. At least the authors had that part right. I will be donating this one to our local library.



4. I am glad I read the book by Thomas before knowing about this book. I will take away from the reviews that I rather read what Thomas says of his own life, than read some reporter's opinion on who he is. After reading Thomas' book, I see no need to read what they think.
   
   I read his book and feel Thomas' take on who he is is enough for me. I am proud of this Justice for who he is and what he stands for. I am a black woman who has lived and worked in America. I am successful in my own right, not because of affirmative action or preferences. Justice Thomas is on the supreme court because he is qualified, smart and deserving of the office.



5. This is a difficult book to rate. It's easy reading -- obviously written more to entertain than to inform -- and it's highly biased against the subject yet presented in such a way as to pretend to be balanced. It is character assassination in print.
   
   The subtitle, "The divided soul of Clarence Thomas" is not proven by the discourse. It is obvious that Thomas has a very clear idea of who he is and what the law should be. He is staunch in his beliefs and true to his conscience. There is nothing divided about him.
   
   Justice Thomas seems to have figured out what most of his peers (and definitely the authors)haven't: That affirmative action has proved to be a double-edged sword, as harmful to blacks as it has been useful. It is obvious that Thomas simply considers himself a man, neither black nor white, as he gazes at life and law through clear glasses. To many blacks (and obviously to the authors) this is the Unforgivable Sin.
   
   Thus they portray Justice Thomas as almost manically introspective, weak and flawed. They emphasize the pain he endured over the years from racial slurs and imply that he is almost useless on the court because he can't forget Anita Hill's attacks during his confirmation trial before Congress. I use the word trial intentionally here.
   
   I had wondered why Justice Thomas was publishing a memoir at this time since it would necessarily bring Hill to the forefront again. This book must be the reason. He knew this would be what it is when he refused the authors access to himself and his memorabilia. He was right. The prejudice against him here is almost hysterical.
   
   One of the points the authors belabor again and again is their contention (and yes, it has been said by others) that Thomas is a lackey to or clone of Justice Scalia because they vote the same way. I believe it was Jan Crawford Greenburg (whose new book, "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States," is just published) who said in an interview on Book TV just last weekend that she had gone through all the records specifically to determine whether there was truth in that particular assumption. She says in most cases Thomas voted first and that it might be more accurate to say that it was Scalia who followed in Thomas's footsteps. That research should have been done by these authors.
   
   Since their prejudice against Justice Thomas is so pronounced and their indictments of his character so repetitious I can't help but wonder what material they left out from their massive second-source research. It would not be presumptuous to assume that they were highly selective in order to prove their thesis that Thomas is so flawed that he is ineffective on the Court (something that isn't said but is strongly implied in these pages).
   
   One of the things they object to most about him is the fact that he seldom asks questions during court sessions. They don't seem to realize that when one is talking, s/he isn't learning. Justice Thomas says someone always asks the questions he would, so he just listens until the answer surfaces. That is wisdom.
   
   What they object to most, however, seems to be that Thomas is a Constitutional originalist. That is, he believes in the Constitution as written and is suspicious of re-creating it "to fit" contemporary times. He is less inclined to use stare decisis (respect for precedent) when considering cases and he believes strongly in the rights of states to handle most social issues. That conservatism truly irks the authors and I believe these are the reasons they have chosen to emphasize the negative and present such a biased smear.
   
   Almost every page and certainly every chapter belabors the anger and pain that Justice Thomas presumably harbors from his growing up years (in addition to the Hill episode). He would be have to be insane if he wasn't hurt and the fact that he has risen above the destiny presumed by his birth and has served so honorably at various levels of government, including the highest court in the land, shows the mettle of the man.
   
   Justice Clarence Thomas is a great American and a noble jurist who is doing his best. We can ask no more of anyone.

5 comments about Bobby and J. Edgar: The Historic Face-Off Between the Kennedys and J. Edgar Hoover that Transformed America.

1. I found this book very interesting to read. It is of special interest to me living in Massachusetts during this period. I found consideral insight into the politics of the time. It was well written and held my attention until the last page in the book.



2. A new slant on the differences between a new generation in politics and how not to use power.A nasty powerful man who was corrupt and used his position to stay in power at others expense.The Kennedys and J Edgar Hoover is a good book and lots of information brought to light .A.T.Kiln



3. It's a well-written, well-sourced book detailing disturbing relationships, among them:
   * The mob and the Mormons in Las Vegas
   * The rum-running "founding father" Joseph Kennedy and his intertwined business interests with the criminal element
   * The at-times destructive relationship of the brothers Kennedy to one another.
   Mr. Hersh's account is high on credibility and readability. However, this is not a book for those who want to swallow the "martyr" myths about JFK and RFK.



4. This primly salacious biography suffers from two conflicting flaws. Writer Burton Hersh seems to know too much about his subjects and is unable to dissever the wheat from the chaff. He seems hell-bent on telling the reader everything about everything, to the point of confusion. Detailing knicknames of mobsters who make cameo appearances in a paragraph or two, for example, blurs understanding rather than clarifying. Burton's quick switching between names hampers understanding as well, with John F. Kennedy switching to Jack and Bobby to Robert to Bob within a few sentences, making it difficult to be sure what character is acting in the play. The overabundance of detail makes for a very tedious read.
   
   Compounding the difficulty is a serious failure in editorial oversight. Misspellings abound, both typographic and the "spellcheck" variety with correctly spelled but incorrect words. Sentence structure is convoluted to the point that necessitates re-reading, parsing and deconstructing the author's intent. A competent editor would have cut a third of the text and imposed clearer chronological threads. History buffs will pick up a few new details and learn more about the sex lives and obsessions of the rich and famous than is particularly useful.



5. For about half the book, I was thinking Hersh did a tremendous job of researching the Mob-Kennedy-Hoover nexus, adding a great deal to what several other books on the subject have alleged.
   
   Then I got to the Kennedy assassination and it became clear that Hersh was simply repeating conspiracy lore and mythology without any ability or perhaps inclination to evaluate the material.
   
   Suspicion is not evidence, and to allege that a lot a strange and suspicious things happened, does not prove that the Mob/CIA/FBI/Cubans were in league to kill Kennedy. A plausible motive is not the same as proof of participation in a conspiracy.
   
   Only one case in point: on page 422 Hersh alleges that the FBI reversed six crucial images on the Zapruder film -- frames 313-319 -- to cover up the fact that there was another gunman (or was it several)?
   
   Does Hersh think that a half-dozen splices can be made in film and not be detectable? Nobody would notice that Kennedy's head, instead of exploding for six frames, would be reassembled? The limo, instead of traveling left-to-right, would be traveling right-to-left for six frames?
   
   This is grade-school stuff.
   
   It is understandable that the FBI would attempt to protect its reputation, even to the extent of altering/suppressing evidence of its incompetence. But to suggest that the FBI had an interest in protecting the killers requires evidence. Conspiracy buffs quote each other as authorities, and eventually create a huge network of myth, aided and abetted by Oliver Stone's bizarre movie (ummm, those were composites characters, was his defense).
   
   In the end, Hersh proves to be so gullible that nothing he wrote in the book can be taken at face value, however sensational -- maybe, particularly if sensational.

5 comments about Not a Genuine Black Man: Or, How I Claimed My Piece of Ground in the Lily-White Suburbs.

1. Brian Copeland's new memoir shows us the world through the eyes of an 8-yr old black boy and the challenges of growing up black in an all-white neighborhood and school. He never really got to relax and enjoy his childhood because life was pretty much a war zone for him. His absentee father would show up and verbally abuse him, as did potentially anyone he came in contact with. So he had no role model; he had to grow up too soon and become the man of the house. The protector of his mother and younger sisters. No one was in his corner. Teachers feared uprisings or job loss for taking up for him. As he got older he learned how to mask his fears and to use humor to cover up the painful past. The book also delves into mental illness. When suffering from tearful outbursts for no apparent reason, his psychiatrist likened his condition to PTST - Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Dealing with that after all these years has made him a stronger person, and one who can reach out to help others. The book is a huge eye-opener. It is a heartwrenching read. But his humorous writing provides the foil needed to keep the reader from throwing down the book and drowning in despair and shame for what injustices blacks went through in order to get out of the ghetto and to have a productive, satisfying, prosperous life. While race is a big part of the book, Copeland insists his story is more about being an outsider and what skills outsiders can use to "cope" in a "land" of insiders. I highly recommend this book! I couldn't put it down! I am a richer person for having read it.



2. Brian Copeland shares his life story with us in Not a Genuine Black Man. It is insightful, touching and important. Although the subject matter of racial prejudice is serious, he tells the story with much humor to help us, and him, be able to get through it.
   
   If you've ever seen Brian do stand up comedy, listened to him discussing topical news issues on his highly rated talk radio show or met him in person he comes across as being "not like other blacks".
   
   Every white person knows someone like Brian. The co-worker at the office who doesn't have the "accent". Who talks about and does "normal" things. The one who is "just like us". The one who "doesn't play the race card". You've heard at least one person say "why can't they all be like him?"
   
   There are white people who believe racism and discrimination are a thing of the past, saying that no one alive today was ever a slave and everyone now has the right to vote. They feel that African Americans just have a chip on their shoulder based only on injustices that happened a long time ago to someone else. For "proof", they point to African Americans like Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Dick Parsons, Stanley O'Neal, John W. Thompson and Oprah Winfrey. Surely they are "just like us", the theory goes, because they choose not to feel victimized by the ancient injustices others suffered.
   
   Copeland lets us see behind the curtain. We learn of the pain that prejudice causes first hand through the eyes of Brian as a child and the toll that experience takes on him as an adult. We learn that with everything he has accomplished, there are white people to this day who say "Yeah, but he's still just a n____". We learn the pain doesn't stop with the discrimination -- when he refuses to make an issue of it and not let it get him down, there are those in the African American community that accuse him of not being a "genuine black man".
   
   Brian let's us know that he is successful and "like us" not because he never experienced the pain of prejudice, but rather he is successful and "like us" despite it.
   
   "Not a Genuine Black Man" is a must read with lessons for everyone. African American readers will surely relate to his experiences and the pain he feels. White readers may begin to understand it.



3. I enjoyed the book, but not for $14. I thought the author could have had more depth instead of simply recalling the past. I did enjoy learning about the Bay Area and the history of San Leandro, though. He is a funny man, but the book could have had a little more "meat".



4. Brian Copeland's "Not a Genuine Black Man" is a provocative and moving autobiography that begins the Copeland family's 1972 move into "lily white" San Leandro, California. Brian was then eight years old. And San Leandro (99.9% white) was using any method it could to maintain an all-white status.
   
   Copeland, a San Francisco Bay Area TV/Radio celebrity, comedian, and author, is an excellent story teller and tells his story alternating between his arrival in San Leandro and an awakening at age 35 which led to an attempted suicide. "Not a Genuine Black Man" is more than the story of Copeland's struggles with overt bigotry and eventual depression, it is also the story of his mother's and grandmother's resilience that brought San Leandro into the post-civil rights era as a diverse, inclusive community.
   
   The book's title "Not a Genuine Black Man" comes from a letter Copeland received from talk-radio listener which said, "As an African-American, I am disgusted every time I hear your voice because you are not a genuine black man. The letter becomes a catalyst for Copeland to explore his past and find out who he is. "Not a genuine black man...What does that mean?"
   
   Upon reflection, Copeland sees that his mother really wanted white childre and did not want to associate with the black community. "I'm not one of these blacks." As a result, a young black child was faced with the challenge of growing up in one of the most racist suburbs in America with a mother who was trying to escape her black roots. Unknowingly, he had to develop a mask to protect himself from these truths...a mask that would lead to depression.
   
   "Behind most of our masks is a truth that is hidden for a specific reason. Often we don't know what that truth is. I wasn't ready to deal with my truths, but ready or not, they started to bubble to the surface. Once that began to happen, try as I might, I couldn't get the toothpaste to go back into the tube. I knew I had to face the truth about my mother."
   
   Today, San Leandro has changed and Copeland now feels proud of being part of the change. Members of all races worship side by side in the pews of churches of all denominations. His grandmother and, posthumously, his mother were presented with a commendation from the City of San Leandro for "their bravery" to make San Leandro a better place for all.
   
   And as the City has changed, Copeland has also changed. He knows now what it really means to be a genuine black man - he is a "unique man" who has the resilience of his forefathers and the fortitude of his mother and grandmother. His experience is unique and it is a "true" black experience because this is his experience.
   
   A human life is the most complex narrative of all: it has many layers of events which embrace outside behavior and actions, the inner stream of the mind, the underworld of the unconscious, the soul, fantasy, dream and imagination. There is no account of life which can ever mirror or tell all of this. Copeland has offered us a sample of this complexity and reminds us that black people are not a monolith with one lifestyle, one viewpoint, and one agenda. They are a varied lot like any ethnic group, each with their own complex narrative to tell. Narratives that we all must hear.



5. An ideal assigned reading for ANY and ALL high school/college level students. So poignant, humorous, self-reflective and blatantly truthful --Mr. Copeland's personal retrospective, analyzing just exactly what he knows (his life), comes entertainingly packaged in a wrenching yet totally engaging exhalation.
   
   I'd say that this book IS GUARANTEED (yes, this is a superlative) to activate "the thinking mechanism" and elevate your class to that of an educational milestone. If there is one common element which student readers most respect, it's an author's iron-clad commitment to
   "keeping it real". Well, Mr. Copeland's clever and stylish prose delivers a tasty dose of head-on reality which will move readers to a new and better place.
   
   Reviewer's "poetic license" observation:
   
   Inexplicably often, peoples' names accurately and ironically depict a significant measure of their calling. Mr. COPELAND, I'm personally thankful for you and your families' inspirational determination; I'm humbled by my ability to include you in this often recognized, yet little understood club.
   
   NOT A GENUINE BLACK MAN: OR, HOW I CLAIMED MY PIECE OF GROUND IN THE LILY-WHITE SUBURBS

5 comments about Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice.

1. Joan Biskupic's biography on Sandra Day O'Connor is one of the best biographies I have read. She discusses Justice O'Connor's life from before she became a Supreme Court Justice to when she announced her retirement. Not only did Ms. Biskupic discuss how the court changed in the early 1980's with the addition of the nation's first woman Supreme Court Justice, but she discussed how this effected the other justices as well. Moreover, the reader who may just be wanting to learn about Justice O'Connor learns about all of the Supreme Court Justices that she served with during her tenure. It is an easy read and would be a great book for high school and college students, who were not born yet when Sandra Day O'Connor first joined the Supreme Court and gave them an idea what she had to contend with to get her job and also what life was like during the 80's, 90's and early 21st century. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the life of Sandra Day O'Connor. She is truly a very interesting woman and a role model for young women today.



2. No author to date has fine-tuned the story of O'Connor from ranch to robes as well as Ms. Biskupic. The extent of her study and interviews shows, but does not become an academic report. It is fresh and insightful, and certainly as amusing and straight-shooting as its subject.
   
   If you are interested in the law, the Supremes, history in the making, or simply the politics of what it means to be a woman in the law, this is the book you want to read.



3. As an admirer of SDO for quite some time, this book opened me up to admire her even more. This book told me so many things that I never knew. It also explained her reasoning behind many of her decisions, both as a justice and in life. Worth the read.



4. Joan Biskupic's biography _Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice_ provides a compelling picture of the first woman Supreme Court justice and of the inner workings of the Supreme Court through four presidential administrations. Biskupic combines assiduous research with a writing style that makes the intricacies of Supreme Court proceedings accessible and fascinating. The biography is impressive on many counts, especially in how it captures O'Connor's skilfull handling of the challenges of being the nation's first female Supreme Court Justice. Throughout, Biskupic's stance is balanced, outlining the strengths of O'Connor's jurisprudence while acknowleding O'Connor's critics.
   
   While the main focus of the biography is on O'Connor's work in the Supreme Court, the early chapters offer a snapshot of O'Connor as a driven career woman, a devoted wife and mother, and an adroit politician. Biskupic shows how O'Connor's life on the family's "Lazy B." farm in Arizona was a formative influence, even though her parents consciously separated her from the farm in order to give her more educational opportunities at a private school in in El Paso. Her father's independence and opposition to the expansion of federal powers in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and O'Connor's experiences as a trial lawyer, an Arizona state senator, and a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals shaped an approach to law based on pragmatic, narrow definitions as opposed to overarching theoretical positions in rulings. As Biskupic shows, O'Connor's Arizonan, Western roots are manifest in her respect for the Tenth Amendment, which gives to states those powers not directly assigned to the federal government.
   
   Biskupic is sensitive in tracing O'Connor's role as a trailblazer (though, often, in a purposefully understated way), and the biography shows how attitudes toward women have evolved from the 1950s to the present. O'Connor, for instance, despite graduating in the top 10% at Stanford University's Law school in 1952 and having been a member of the Stanford Law Review, received no offers at firms. One prestigious firm, Gibson, Dunn offered her a legal secretary position, which she declined. In an irony reflective of social changes, when Fred Smith, Ronald Reagan's White House Counsel and a former lawyer with Gibson, Dunn, and Grutcher, interviewed O'Connor in 1981 for the Supreme Court vacancy, O'Connor asked him if it was an interview for "a secretarial position." Biskupic begins her book with this effective anecdote, and the biography throughout reveals how O'Connor astutely negotiated gender prejudice in public life.
   
   Biskupic also offers a detailed picture of O'Connor's important votes related to Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, capital punishment, and Bush v. Gore as she became increasingly the fifth tie-breaking in a deadlocked court. Biskupic chronicles O'Connor's evolution as a jurist, arguing that her role as a centrist often made her a baramoter of where the nation as a whole stood. Biskupic points out that O'Connor's legislative background as an Arizona State Senator--as a person who ran for office and thus who was directly accountable to the electorate--gave her a unique perspective in the Supreme Court with its life-time appointees.
   
   Chapter 15, "Scalia v. O'Connor," highlights O'Connor's judicial pragmatism and minimalist interpretations, offering a contrast with Scalia's philosophically driven understanding of law on originalist grounds. In this chapter, Biskupic addresses critiques of O'Connor's decisions and legal reasoning from both the right and left. This chapter is fair in its discussion and highly informative about different approaches to law and about the role of the Supreme Court, in general.
   
   An anecdote at the end of the book reveals O'Connor's personal style. In an interview with Biskupic, Clarence Thomas recalled O'Connor's congeniality and even the subtle impact this had on the court . O'Connor had attempted for a number of years to convince the other justices to eat lunch together after listening to cases. Although Thomas and other justices initially resisted, prefering to work on cases, he and others later relented. Thomas remarks, "Now, you have a group of people who really enjoy other's company." Biskupic argues that such tact helped lead to O'Connor's ascendant role in the court.
   
   Biskupic's biography chronicles O'Connor's own life and provides a view of the day-to-day dynamics of the Supreme Court, including shifts in the court with retirements and the investitures of new justices. The biography, while telling many important stories affecting American law and life, maintains a clear argument of O'Connor's unmistakable influence.



5. This is a most engaging portrait of a model justice in the common law tradition. Justice O'Connor is a true American icon of humble and hardworking origins rising to the heights of leadership based on character, critical thinking and an ethic of service. Her good will and civility toward those with whom she disagreed is an example to follow. The narrative is well informed, nuanced and flows steadily in a current that merges national, judicial and personal events in the judge's life most artfully. A wonderful book about a wonderful lady and an excellent Supreme Court justice. It is the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor that make one proud to be an American. And though I've never (yet) voted Republican she is also one more beautiful reason to love Ronald Reagan.

5 comments about Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.

1. This great bio by Richard Hack follows the life of the long time director of the F.B.I
   J. Edgar Hoover starting with his boyhood in the Washington area and following him through his school days and onward to the seat of power. We get an interesting look at Hoover from the days of the mid-west gangsters to hilarious rants on Martin Luther King that border on paranoia.
   
   Before when I thought of J. Edgar Hoover I always had a vague picture an evil man who indulged in activates in secret that he ruined other people for. It is interesting to see the interpretation in this book; it was not the man that was evil it was just that as time went on he used evil methods to hold on to his power.
   
   While it is tempting for some to want a watershed moment where Hoover would either "get with it" or retire it never arrives. Instead Hoover goes on becoming less and less relevant and that if nothing else can be considered a form of poetic justice.



2. Before I read this I had a reasonably good general knowledge of Hoover from reading books about 20th Century US History in general. However, I had not read a dedicated biography of Hoover himself. Some reviewers have remarked that Hack's book does not add anything really new. This may or may not be true. However, I found it to be a good read and a well paced, well written, well laid out biography of a very strange and important man.
   
   One thing that was jarring about Hack's book is that occassionally he will delve into internal dialogue that is clearly speculation on his part. For example, he will describe what Hoover was thinking as he lay in bed at night, or what he was thinking in the shower. Without sources, such as a diary entry, this is clearly just speculative embellishment. Hack also describes some personal lunch conversations that appear to be speculative as well. The speculation seems reasonable, however, and is not salacious or scandalous.
   
   In fact, one thing that probably sets this biography apart from others (not that I have read others, but I am familiar with accusations in other biographies of Hoover), is that Hack concludes that Hoover was probably not an actively homosexual man and that his strange relationship with Clyde Tolson was platonic. More accurately, he claims that there is no real evidence that the relationship with Tolson was non-platonic.
   
   Hack provides a very balanced portrait of Hoover, giving credit to his incredible drive, patriotism, and loyalty to his ideal of the American Way. Hack also presents a Hoover who was constantly self-promoting, paranoid, and who used his office for personal gain in the form of book royalties, government paid vacations, graft from "friends" and government paid improvements to his house. While Hoover's disregard of civil liberties is clear to all, Hoover's lack of financial integrity somehow left a deeper impression with this reader.
   
   I recommend this book. In understanding Hoover's long life as a civil servant, the reader gains a deeper understanding of America from before the First World War to just before Watergate.



3. None of these reviewers seem to have been in the circus. No mention of Judge Williaml Webster in 1950 in Hack's book. Surprise that JE was friendly to Robert Kennedy and the others in that clan, other accounts had it that they did not work together well. Hack's book id a sort of aerial view of Mr.Hoover's career.



4. This book was exactly what I wanted...to learn about J. Edgar Hoover's life. It was interesting!



5. I knew nothing about Hoover before reading this book, but Hack does a comprehensive job in this bio. Hoover is portrayed as a higly intelligent, organized man, who had too much power for his (or the country's) good.
   
   Hoover's need for fame was a double edged sword: It helped promote the FBI and it's intentions, but it also put public image over real substance. The most interesting parts of the book were Hoover tracking down old-time mobsters, and his obsession with Martin Luther King Jr. and his ties to the communist party.
   
   The biggest problems with the book were lack of technical details (Hack throughout mentions illegal wire taps and "black bag jobs", but never goes into details of how they were implemented), and apparent embellishment of the truth. For example, Hack goes into detail in converstaions between 2 people which there are no sources for. This is confusing and detracts from the overall authenticity of the book.
   
   Overall, this was a great book to learn about this unusual leader. I think it paints a farily balanced picture of him, not as an evil man, but of a smart control freak and media hound that was given too much power for too long.

5 comments about Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights.

1. There have been several struggles in civil rights in the USA. Women suffrage, African American civil rights, and finally the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Bisexual cause.
   
   Yoshino, a law professor at Yale and a gay, Asian-American man, masterfully melds autobiography and legal scholarship in this book, marking a move from more traditional pleas for civil equality to a case for individual autonomy in identity politics. Seldom has a work of such careful intellectual rigor and fairness been so deeply touching.
   
   In questioning the phenomenon of "covering," a term used for the coerced hiding of crucial aspects of one's self--in his case his homosexuality--Yoshino thrusts the reader into a battlefield of shifting gray areas. Yet, at every step, he anticipates the reader's questions and rebuttals, answering them not only with acute reasoning, but also with disarming humility.
   
   What emerges is an eloquent, poetic protest against the hidden prejudices embedded in American civil rights legislation--legislation that tacitly apologizes for "immutable" human difference from the white, male, straight norm, rather than defending one's "right to say what one is." Though Yoshino recognizes the law's potential to further (and hinder) liberty's cause, he admits that his "education in law has been an education in its limitations." Hence, by way of his unsparing accounts of self-realization, he reveals that the struggle against oppression lies not solely in fighting an imagined, monolithic state but as much in intimate discourse with the mother, the father, and the colleague who constitute that state. It deals with the ability to "blend" with the society who is yet to give the GLBT community the rights and respect it deserves.
   
   As healing as it is polemical, this book has tremendous potential as a touchstone in the struggle for universal human dignity.



2. No offense to Yoshino, but in truth, he doesn't make many actual points. This is a great book if you want to hear about his personal journey, but it's not very enlightening overall.



3. A mix of professional experience, glimpses of personal experience, poetic imagination and some interesting ideas for America's future. I am glad I've read it. The only regret is that the book doesn't lead to a powerful, clear vision for the country. The very interesting ideas from the introduction are just briefly repeated at the end. Maybe someone else will build upon this material? The book certainly encourages a discussion. Maybe that was the whole point?



4. The Publisher's Weekly review says it all, but I cannot let the opportunity pass to add my voice to those honoring this book. Yes, it's a simple concept, elaborated over 200 pages, but there is nothing monotonous about it. The academic monotony characteristic of similar monographs is thwarted through the simplest of means: the scholar-author is also a poet. He writes on the minutiae of civil rights law with the compression and unexpected image that make strong poetry memorable. I heard the author speak on the concept of Covering on the Maine Public Radio broadcast of the Chataqua Program. The discussion was interesting enough, but when he read the Epilogue, I immediately thought, "I have to have that in my Commonplace Book." As a politically active gay man and 15-year conductor of a gay men's chorus, I've often meditated on the meaning of cultural appropriation, assimilation, and accommodation and the resulting effect on actualization and abnegation of the individual. So, Kenji Yoshino's orderly discussion of coversion, passing, and covering is immediately attractive to me. But it is not my habit to read 'brainiac' books. I'm put off by the customary tone, talking down to me, especially when the subject of the discussion is, by inference, me and the people I know and love. This one is the exception. I feel like Yoshino and I have just spent a long evening, with a wide variety of friends, talking about something of immediate concern to all of us. And then there's that Epilogue. Talk is one thing, but how we live it out is usually quite another. And it's never simple. That's why it's best left to the hands of a poet, and this poet has done it well.



5. I recently heard Professor Yoshino speak here in Seattle on a day in celebration of Human Rights Day, and I can attest to his being a gifted speaker and possessing an extraordinary intellect.
   
   However, with respect to the notion of "covering," a term I believe that he has coined in this book to illuminate a polemical topic that he wishes to place squarely into the fore of the larger map/discourse of civil rights in the U.S., I am perplexed that his notion of the "mainstream" apparently does not take into account more dimensions, e.g., the cultural anthropological/sociological.
   
   From my own experience as a gay man AND as an Asian-American, I have found, largely to my dismay, that in either social group, there is, in fact, a "mainstream" that does, in fact, exert pressure to conform to its "majority" norms, behaviors...
   
   And I would suppose that in any "society," whether it be in a nation-state such as Japan, or a social group such as African-Americans, that there do exist "mainstream" cultures that individuals within those groups do have to "contend with."
   
   "Covering" as Yoshino has placed it has, by dint of his conceptual definition of it has overwhelmingly negative connotations, one which allows a "mainstream" body within a social group to exert pressures on individual members who do not conform, whether out of choice or due to individual disposition.
   
   But sometimes what could be considered "covering" (by some people) is also a means of what one could consider "healthy assimilation" or a reasonable concession to the majority--without being in any way a "sell-out."
   
   When and where such "concessions" become a sell-out, of course, is an open question. But even where "adaptation" in some behaviors to the "norm" of the mainstream does occur, it may simply entail "building bridges" and acknowledging the opinion of the majority rather than remaining in isolation from them.
   
   (If, for example, I am a nudist, I can still choose to walk outside of my house WITH clothing on, if only in simple deference to the fact that the law and the majority of my fellow citizens deem it an offense or offensive or both).
   
   This is not to deny the legitimacy of the claims of gay people to equal rights (to marriage, protection from discrimination in the job market, etc.) but to point out that "covering" might be understood in a more nuanced context. Covering, in all its different aspects, is not tantamount in all situations to being an "assault on civil rights."
   
   Covering may simply describe the "interface" where the majority and a smaller grouping, at least in a particular situation, and where the minority accedes to the norms of the former--despite the negative overtones that the author is ascribing to it. In other cases, the reverse (majority accedes to the behaviors of the minority despite a clear divergence of opinion) could and, in fact, DOES happen in America.
   
   In some instances, too, dysfunctional or inappropriate (vis-a-vis the majority) behavior by a minority is tolerated, condoned, or even lauded.
   
   Discussions of loaded discussions of "diversity" or "covering" need to be evaluated within a context rather than be seen in a predetermined, black-or-white intellectual "matrix."
   
   In other words, the major concern that I have with this book is that it too "obviously" has an agenda stamped on it.
   
   The personal details disclosed nicely balance the analytical (legal) side of the discussion.
   
   But in terms of overall appeal to both mind AND heart, a little less Paul Haggis (director/screenwriter of "Crash"). Taking a strong position on an issue, with corroborative evidence, is fine. Re-iterating that position--as a constant thread--throughout a long discussion may seem to some people evidence of "not dodging an issue." But considering all the different dimensions of that issue would provide, I believe, a more balanced, more cogent argument in favor of one's position.

5 comments about What Lips My Lips Have Kissed: The Loves and Love Poems of Edna St. Vincent Millay.

1. Catching up on my Amazon reviews (only about 300 books behind)---been a big fan of Millay since my first reading of Renascence (a favorite poem). Millay was a personality before there were magazines and 24/7 coverage of a celebrities every move---no doubt she would have been good fodder for these purveyors of the lives of others. Ms. Millay lived on the edge and her talent was equalled by a life lived large. Mr. Epstein captured this exceptionally woman beautifully in his well-written biography.
   Highly recommended.



2. This is an intimate portrait of Millay that I cherish. It is also a valuble historical account of many aspects of Maine life. The location and circumstances of Millay's estranged father and the inhabitants of the small town of Kingman in Northern Penobscot County are invaluable in my research of the area. Henry Millay lived in my house in Kingman and no doubt some of Vincent's work was conceived, if not written from my house. It is this connection which has led to my current collection of Millay's work and life. Thank you for this offering on your invaluable site.



3. It's not easy being a poet, and Daniel Mark Epstein's biography of Edna St. Vincent Millay in What Lips My Lips Have Kissed, confirms this. From love affairs with men and women to excessive drinking, this book has it all.
   However, there were some things in the book that could have been elaborated on. For example, Epstein had my attention from the very first chapters about Millay's young life as a poet. He mentions how she would conduct candlelight seances in her rooms at night, and would use them as inspiration to write her poetry. He also mentions how close she was with her mother, Cora. I think Epstein should have gone into further detail on both Millay's life as a young poet, and her relationship to her mother. Instead, the book focuses on her love affairs with many men (and a few with some of the women she met at Vassar), as well as the ups and downs she experienced within these relationships and within her life as a poet. Now granted, the book might not be successful if it tried to incorporate the points I would have liked to have seen, but I think especially concerning Millay's feelings of great love for her mother, it might make the book a stronger one.
   What I admired about the book was the feeling I got of Epstein's concern as a present-day writer looking into Millay's steady decline as poet throughout. As a reader, I sensed a certain kind of admiration and esteem for her in the tone of the book, especially at the start of her career as a writer. I was saddened at the end of the book to learn that Millay died from an intake of too much alcohol as well as a fall from her steps. Epstein's concern at the end, too, only strengthened my view that poets do not lead the kinds of high-roller lives that people would like to believe they do.
   When I finished the book, I found myself wanting to know more of the sensitive and acclaimed poet. I wanted to know what drew her so much to alcohol and morphine that she was so wont to abuse. I wanted to know why exactly her husband Eugen's reasoning was in briefly trying morphine in an attempt to make her realize that morphine was indeed not the solution to her problems. I wanted to know what Millay's reasoning was in having extra-marital affairs with other men while being married to Eugen. And I wanted to know more about Millay's sisters; why Kathleen went mad, and why she seemed to stay more in touch with her other sister, Norma, more than Kathleen. I wanted more answers than I got from reading this book.
   In short, while this book is interesting and well-organized, it does not offer a complete look into Millay's psyche and way of perceiving her world. It is most probably a book that would support research done on the poet's life, rather than being a book that can stand on its own. If you want to read a book about Millay's love affairs, read this book. If you want to read about her life as a whole, look elsewhere.



4. This is simply a great biography.
   
   Apparently Epstein was able to gain access to a vast Library of Congress collection of documents on Millay that won't be released to the public until 2010. And he seems to have done an unusually good job of sorting through all this information and putting it in order.
   
   Perhaps it's due to Epstein being a poet himself, but he's able to give a wonderfully sensitive and intelligent account of Millay's life. He's done lots of detective work, and it seems to all hold together.
   
   It's an unbelievable story -- so American in some ways: the gilded age to ragtime to the Jazz Age, the World Wars, anti-war and women's rights, passion, poetry, Greenwich Village and the Left Bank, genius, narcissism, money, fame, sex, alcohol, drugs, a skyrocket ride from poverty to success to destruction.
   
   And yet so un-American in its calm, well-behaved, almost English manner: no shooting, no fist-fights, no one calling the cops, a time when books of poetry sold 50,000 copies and folks jam-packed auditoriums to hear poetry readings -- think Bloomsbury secretly on meth and Virginia Woolf quietly dedicating herself to nymphomania.
   
   Really a well-written book, and surely the best biography of Millay so far.



5. Mr. Epstein's passion for his subject was the first attractor for me upon reading this well written, intriguing biography of Edna St. Vincent Millay, specifically focusing on her very tumultuous love life and the poetry which was birthed due to her romantic and [physical relations].

   The prose reads like Mr. Epstein has fallen in love with Edna just as the many men in her path fell in love with her.

   I also found the diversions which came later (like the horse Chaladon) and her well known descent into alcoholism and drug addiction were very compelling to dive into: I would have appreciated more of these times, although the limited documentation available would explain why there isn't more information here.

   This book does its job well: makes me more curious about Edna St. Vincent Millay: from her poetry, her plays and her life outside the written word.

5 comments about The Making of a Country Lawyer: An Autobiography.

1. As Spence promises on the cover, this book is about himself.
   
   You'll learn how Spence's mother's selfish suicide and religious overbearing nature have plagued him. Her death was a life-long sentence without a trial. It drove him to obsess over the innocence and justifiable mistakes of others.



2. It has been said that it takes a great deal of courage for a person to take both their private thoughts and sacred moments and put them down on paper for another person to read. This is what Gerry Spence has done with his autobiography, and he should be congratulated for doing so. Spence is renowned for his landmark victories in court, including the Karen Silkwood estate, The defense of Randy Weaver, and the acquittal of Imelda Marcos. This story is not about that chapter in Spence's life, it is about the life of the young man who became this lawyer. Spence spends a fair amount of time talking about personal intimate details of his youth that most people would prefer to forget about, let alone share with perfect strangers. For me, this is where Spence's courage deserves to be applauded. Spence now presents himself as a kind understanding gentleman who is capable of dealing respectfully will those from all walks of life -- one of the many reasons he is so successful at handling jury trails. To read his own story, this was not always the case. I have read other reviews of this book from people who were shocked to learn the details of this man's teenage, young adult, and middle adult years and seemed to hold it against him. To me, Spence is not ashamed, as he should not be, about the path his life has taken. He offers no apology, and does not owe us one. He simply describes in detail the story of the first half (approximately) of his life with insight as to how it created the Gerry Spence that we all now know and love.
   
   Some parts of the book to tend to get a little long and drawn out. This is simply Spence being Spence. He is never in a hurry to tell his stories and likes to let them meander. They are his stories and this one is about his life, so he should tell it his way.
   
   My final thoughts of this book are not so much about he book itself, but something that happen right after I finished it. I had read several of Spence's works in succession. This book was the last. Not long afterward I sat down one Saturday afternoon and send him an e-mail telling him what I had read and that I appreciated his writing and his work. I sent the mail not really expecting anything and took off for the gym. I came home a few hours later and found a reply in my Inbox from Gerry thanking me and telling me that I had made his day. It was nice to know that I was able to talk briefly with a renowned figure.



3. In the Making of a Country Lawyer, Spence delivers what most of those who write autobiographies avoid -- a critical, honest and, at times, humorous account of his growth from an awkward youth, to married man, and ultimately to a truly mature man. He is so honest and witty and provides such rich descriptions of his teenage years, his law school "education," and his first few trials that I would be cringing one moment and laughing out loud the next. So emotionally lost was Spence at different times that it appeared he could never find his way out of the abyss, nevermind reclaim the mountain top. It is more than an autobiography, it is the story of man so tormented with guilt and feelings of inadequacy that he's desperate to escape his own skin . . . until he meets his soulmate. It's the best autobiography I've ever read and perhaps Spence's best book.



4. This book relates the details of the life of Gerry Spence, a well-known trial lawyer. From his earliest days of life through the beginnings of his second marriage, Spence reveals to us what his life was like, who his influences were, and how he reacted. The driving focus of the book is Spence's mother, who took her own life when he was a young man. At the time of her death, she and Spence had had a falling out, and Spence sees much of the rest of his life as trying to make peace with her. At the end of this book, some of Spence's famous cases and clients are mentioned in an epilogue; however, these topics are not discussed in the memoir section at all.
   
   As an outsider to Spence's family, this book was extremely hard to get through. Some of the details of his early life in rural Wyoming were quite interesting, and he certainly reveals some of his character as he variously compares arguing in the courtroom to wild game hunting or playing poker. The stories of his first marriage and its breakup, and how he took up with another woman are not exactly things to be proud of, and I'm not sure his family would really want to see these details published. When his marriage was on the rocks, he decided to sell his family's home in Wyoming together with all their possessions and start life anew in Mill Valley, California. Within a month, though, he abandoned his family in Mill Valley, where they were far from relatives, friends or any other people who might provide emotional support, to go back to his mistress in Wyoming. I couldn't help thinking about Judith Wallerstein's book about children of divorce ("Second Chances") when I read this section. For her studies, she chose families facing divorce in the early 1970s living in a town in California. Was it Mill Valley where she did her studies? Did she include the four Spence children in her work? Was it the Spence children whose standard of living took a drastic nosedive when their father moved in with someone else? But it was the woe begotten prose addressed to Spence's mother that was the most difficult part of this book to get through. I had hoped to develop some sympathy for lawyers, or at least for this one, or maybe even learn something about growing up in the West during the Depression by reading this book. Instead, after reading this book, I find myself repelled even by the thought of reading any more memoirs by lawyers.



5. Next to "The Paper Chase",I found Gerry Spence's autobiography to be extremely inspirational, and yet, this time he offered wisdom for the rest of us who do not take up the law. One reviewer missed the point about "country lawyer"(the common man), trying to weaken Spence's building diatribe against corporate America. His vivid, meticulous storytelling ranges as wide as the landscape of his upbringing, where Horatio Alger meets Franklin and finishes with Thomas Paine. In other words, he offers hope for the little guy, the citizen, if men of his cloth would abandon their ways and the rest of us would stop acting like lemmings. This captivating, truth-telling journey to adulthood, runs from the depression to the consumptive new millenium. His many Lincolnian lessons throughout make it a deservedly classic manual for the under-taught. Spence proves Darwin wrong. It's not the fittest, the prepared truth-seekers.

4 comments about Skadden: Power, Money, and the Rise of a Legal Empire.

1. Ever wondered where the suit and tie brigade known as corporate lawyers originate their quirky self-image? Well look no further. Lincoln Caplan's "Skadden..." is undoubtedly a modern legal classic up there with Michael Stewarts "The Partners". Delving inside the history of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP is congruent to understanding the changed corporate world. From Joe Flom's initial proxy battles and rivalry with Marty Lipton to multi-billion dollar, cross-border transactions to the evolution of the new breed of corporate law firm. Skadden's history is inseparable from that of Wall Street and business in the US since its post-World War II founding and as a consequence is a must for all those interested in business as well as those interested in a legal career. A great no holes barred look into the modern law firm.



2. Skadden is an excellent history of both the rise of the modern law firms as well as one of those firms which epitomized that movement. Lincoln Caplan uses an indepth analysis of the practice, politics and people of Skadden Arps to analyze how and why law firms, which had traditionally been small parterships have since grown into businesses as large and competitive as many of the corporations they represent. The story is very well written and insightful and it is obvious that Caplan did extensive research both inside the firm and in legal libraries. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in legal history and it is a good insider's guide to people who do not have experience in a law firm, but are considering working in one or are simply curious what goes in them.



3. There's usually something important to be learned by the absent minded habits of the great and powerful. This book includes one about Joe Flom: He likes to fill the margins of his notes with tightly wound, intricate geometric patters that are uniquely his own design. The author doesn't read much more into it, but there's no reason we readers can't. According the author, Mr. Flom can also be a little brusque in private.

   For law students in particular, this book is a good dose of reality if they are wondering what it's really like to work in a big firm. Interesting critique of the usefulness of this book: I recently asked a Skadden associate (not in their NY office) how he liked this book, and he had not read it. He had to look it up on the firm's website to determine what I was talking about. So this book can help the non-Skadden population understand the Skadden firm perhaps better than the firm understands itself. That would be the ultimate tribute to the author, and a Delphic oracle to Skadden's leadership.

   Since reading this, I cannot help thinking of Joe Flom whenever I'm trapped in some boring meeting, or sidelined in court, waiting for my case to be called. "Can I doodle as well as him?" I ask myself. Then the case is called, or the meeting accelerates, and--poof!--the evanescent reminder of old Joe Flom disappears along with it.




4. Mr. Caplan has gracefully provided readers with an exquisite portrait of the life and times of a twentieth century law firm. Compelling and balanced, the book joyfully tracks the highs and lows of a group of "young turks" who have defined what it means to be a lawyer in corporate America. I am grateful to Mr. Caplan for the time he put into this project, as it gives tremendous insight to law students as to how a law firm operates and what the culture of a law firm embodies. This book is worth reading, worth printing and well worth recommending. Caplan's Tenth Justice, his recording of the Office of Solicitor General is brilliant as well. Joe Flom and Sheila Birnbaum and the rest of the Skadden crew can rest easy as the bard who records their triumphs and tribulations does so with zest and intelligence.